Rape and Kung Fu

The hits just keep on coming regarding guns and rape courtesy of Democrats in the Colorado legislature. Democrat Representative Paul Rosenthal opines in the above video that women do not need guns to protect themselves from rape; citing mace, taser, the buddy system and judo as gun substitutes. Rosenthal apparently is so afraid of pistol packing mamas that any other alternative is preferable. Gun “control” has always had a touch of the irrational about it, as the focus is placed on an inanimate object instead of the people who wield it either for good or for ill. To keep guns out of the hands of the general public, gun “control” advocates are quite willing to see people go without the single most effective response to a violent confrontation. If this isn’t a restriction on the individual liberty that most Americans prize, no restriction on liberty, in principle, can be opposed. This is government treating citizens like children who cannot be trusted to make their own decisions for their own good.

The official song of the Democrat Convention of 2016:

19 Responses to Rape and Kung Fu

As a native Coloradoan I am dismayed by the idiots who are in the legislature (thanks Boulder and Denver). Thirty-five years ago my family’s life was threatened by a criminal who had been in the employ of a relative. The Colorado AG told my mother how to legally kill this person should she come to our home. Yes, it involved a gun.

Twenty years ago, when I was in a law enforcement academy, I was paired with a man who was much larger than I. The point of the pairing was to prove a point to the class- the only way I would survive an assault by this man would be to shoot him. Maybe if these imbeciles actually had a grounding in reality they wouldn’t make assinine statements such as these.

A woman need not resort to tasering in the absence of a suitable firearm. A pike is a formidable weapon that can keep the assailant at a suitably far distance to ensure the safety of the pikewoman. In the event of a ban on high capacity magazines, the pike can be thrust as many times as needed to take out the scumbag. The only real issue is how to fit it into a purse.

I fought off an attacker. “Be quiet or I will blow your brains out”. I gave him both elbows and broke free and began to scream. The attacker ran away. I later read in the newspaper that he had found another victim. This one needed to be shot.

The most commonly reported category of rape is so-called date-rape, and in England and Wales it is estimated that a hundred false accusations are made annually. The alleged victim is granted anonymity; not so the accused, who is ‘named and shamed’ even if the case never gets to court (and usually it doesn’t). If it does, the jury has to decide whom to believe, since the requirement for corrobarative evidence in cases of sexual assault was dropped twenty years ago (although it is still required in Scotland). If women are allowed to shoot someone on the grounds that he was attempting rape, it gives them carte blanche to dispose of a husband or boyfriend and then claim “I said no, but he wouldn’t listen”.
Cynthia makes a good point about law enforcement. A male officer, confronted by an unarmed and aggressive drunk, would be able to restrain him and effect an arrest. A female officer would have to shoot him.

“If women are allowed to shoot someone on the grounds that he was attempting rape, it gives them carte blanche to dispose of a husband or boyfriend and then claim “I said no, but he wouldn’t listen”.”

Not in this country. The battered woman defense sometimes works in this country but frequently it does not. In America people are allowed to use deadly force to prevent an assault in most states, but the burden is upon the defendant to establish that an assault was about to occur.

“In America people are allowed to use deadly force to prevent an assault in most states, but the burden is on the defendant to establish that an assault was about to occur”. I can’t see how this would work in the case of date-rape where there are no witnesses and the putative assailant is already dead. How serious does the threatened assault have to be to justify the use of lethal force? Common assault does not usually result in grievous bodily harm, and an unwanted hand on a knee is technically sexual assault. Is there a concept of proportionate response?

Between 1995 and 2010 thirty-three people were shot dead by British police officers, and some of victims turned out to be unarmed. This has aroused public concern, as in only two cases were the officers responsible identified, and police evidence afterwards is suspect. It would be interesting to know what the statistics are for the US, but there seem to be no official ones in the public domain.

“I can’t see how this would work in the case of date-rape where there are no witnesses and the putative assailant is already dead.”

Easily actually. Were there threats before hand witnessed by other people? Did the dead person have a history of violence? Does the victim have evidence of having been physically assaulted? Was a report promptly made of the death? What comments did the dead person make via social media to the victim prior to being shot. (People who commit crimes, or who intend to commit crimes, often leave a trail a mile wide these days on Facebook, twitter, etc, to the distress of their hard working defense attorneys. Criminals are usually not rocket scientists.)

Alphatron Shinyskullus:
I know your prayers are heard retroactively, since God is omnipresent, outside of time. Thank you, keep praying. God is in charge.
on being attacked:
He was the devil’s zombie. There was no soul, only a terrifying nothingness, the likes of which I have never seen. After I broke loose, I spun around and saw the concrete sidewalk under his shoes through his eyes. It is an ever-present terror to me. If this is hell, I do not want to go there.

Cynthia, these people are not imbeciles at all. They are Stalinists. They know that they cannot implement their Communist style dictatorship while Americans are armed, so they will first disarm the people. They are just using crime as an excuse. Funny how these mass shootings are done mainly by registered Democrats, yet the Dems are the ones who want to change the government and take the guns.

Don, date-rape isn’t usually about violence, it’s about non-consensual sex. A lot of young women nowadays, even in ‘respectable’ jobs, are sexually promiscuous, even predatory. There was a case not long ago of a woman barrister who met a man at a party, went to bed with him, and reported him for rape the next morning on the grounds that she had been too drunk to give her consent. I personally know someone who was maliciously accused; it was six months before the Crown Prosecution Service decided it wouldn’t stand up in court – his life was ruined and she got off scot-free. It’s hardly surprising that only six percent of reported rapes result in a conviction.

James, you are as subject to the dictatorship of relativism and political correctness as the rest of us, guns or no guns. The only other western country with a large number of military-style weapons kept in peoples’ homes is of course Switzerland, where all able-bodied males of military age are required to be in the militia (women can volunteer). Homicides involving service weapons were running at about 300 a year (in a population of 7.6 million) so in 2007 it was decided that although weapons were still kept at home, ammunition would be kept in secure depots.

I respect the arguments of the NRA regarding the right to bear arms, but freedom often comes at a cost. The Germans, alone in Europe, claim the right to drive as fast as they want on the Autobahnen, and are prepared to pay the price in higher traffic casualties.

As a Coloradoan for most of the year at the cabin I am a pistol packin “mamma”. I have never shot at anything but targets nor do I want to. However there are wolves(which I love) and snakes which I don’t love, and any number of varmints inhabiting the hills around me. Even though I am secluded out there you never know who might wander in. I also am a(very old) Girl Scout and my motto is “Be prepared” Even here on the Wisconsin farm you never know when you might have to calm a bull down. All these liberated women and progressive worms have no idea what it takes to “Defend” oneself. They give us so little credit! (And sometimes there’s that skunk in the chickn coop.)

“How serious does the threatened assault have to be to justify the use of lethal force? Common assault does not usually result in grievous bodily harm, and an unwanted hand on a knee is technically sexual assault. Is there a concept of proportionate response?”

Yes there is such a concept. The use of deadly force in defense requires justification that one’s life is being threatened with deadly force. If someone is in your home against your wishes and you kill them I doubt there is a jury in America that would convict them (certainly not in my state anyway), but if you kill someone because they put their hand on your knee you’re probably doing time unless you can convince a jury of why that hand on your knee represented a threat to your life. Like was said earlier in the discussion, gun control advocacy in America is all about Government treating citizens as children. We own weapons for self defense, it’s a right granted to us by God, and insured in our Governing documents that Government shall not infringe upon that right. That’s not ever going to change. If you abuse the right, you pay the price, like so many other crimes. Other than that, Molon Labe.

Peculiar that they are targeting women specifically with this proposed legislation (and aren’t the non-lethal options of mace and tasers also forbidden on campus? No mention of any defensive weapons in the university’s list of suggestions, other than, uh, certain fluids). The only guns-for-self-defense incidents I can vaguely recall being close to all involved women: a great-great aunt shooting dead a mountain lion who approached while she was hanging laundry; the neighbor lady coldly informing the men taking her back door off its hinges that she had a loaded .22 rifle ready; and me as a ninth-grader, discouraging an increasingly predatory high-school stalker with a demilitarized and nonfunctioning FN Herstal.
But then I also remember my mother’s cousin, who was thrown off a bridge because she ‘knew too much.’ She didn’t have a gun. She had a Boston terrier. Not an adequate substitute. My guess is, pepper spray, call boxes, and projectile-vomiting-on-demand would not have helped her either.

I used to buy into the mentality that non-lethal means were generally sufficient. I figured we could grab the kids and escape if need be. Mind you, I fired expert with the M-16, and knew how to handle a weapon. Then when we had five kids, a police chase ended up in our front yard. The guy was cornered in vehicle. The officer got out, and the guy gunned it and rammed the police car. I heard the chase coming and when they came down our street I had all of the kids get into the farthest bedroom with my wife. I seriously thought he was going to try to get in the house until he rammed the police car. If that had happened, I had no idea if I would be up against an armed assailant to defend my family. You can’t carry five kids with two adults over a backyard fence to get away. That just doesn’t work. He hit a few other cars and ran over the lawns of other houses getting away until he finally ended up trapped in a cul-de-sac and was tasered. Then a guy got murdered with a cinder block by some meth head who didn’t even live in our town, just for being there, and this was only a few blocks away. And Sureno gang graffiti began to appear near rental properties. So I realized the whole non-lethal thing might be lethal for me, and I became a gun owner. I began with a Mosin Nagant rifle, because that was what I could afford. It has a nice bayonet on the end too. I have since acquired better firearms, including an AK, an SKS, and a .45 compact auto. I have a duty to protect my family, and I need the means at my disposal to do so. A drugged out 250 pound man will kill a person who doesn’t have a firearm. That’s just all there is to it, and it happened near my house.

We moved to what we thought would be a safer neighborhood after a couple of incidents which demonstrated the police cannot be relied upon to protect you. At a previous residence a man was shooting a handgun at people a block away, and it took the police 45 minutes to get there. Also about a block away from that earlier residence, a guy who did not live in that city picked a random daycare provider, barged in and took a child, and led the police on a chase that ended in a crash on the interstate. Luckily, the little girl he took was uninjured.

While our public servants might wish to protect us, as a practical matter they cannot. In the face of that reality, it is unjust to remove our means of defending ourselves effectively.